data - soc-geogr.net · fema, 2006). although earthquake engineering research and hazard mitigation...

Soc. Geogr., 7, 1–12, 2012www.soc-geogr.net/7/1/2012/doi:10.5194/sg-7-1-2012© Author(s) 2012. CC Attribution 3.0 License.

History of Geo- and Space

SciencesOpen

Acc

ess

Advances in Science & ResearchOpen Access Proceedings

Drinking Water Engineering and Science

Open Access

Ope

n A

cces

s Earth System

Science

Data

Drinking Water Engineering and Science

DiscussionsOpe

n Acc

ess

Ope

n A

cces

s Earth System

Science

Data

Discu

ssions

Social

Geography

Open

Acc

ess D

iscussio

ns

Social

Geography

Open

Acc

ess

Investigating community behaviour after the 2004Chuetsu earthquake: a case study of Kawaguchi, Japan

M. Gismondi

Asia Air Survey Co., LTD, Shinyuri 21 bldg., 2-2 Manpukuji-1, Asao-Ku, Kawasaki City, Kanagawa,215-0004, Japan

Correspondence to:M. Gismondi ([email protected])

Received: 8 August 2011 – Published in Soc. Geogr. Discuss.: 6 December 2011Revised: 16 February 2012 – Accepted: 21 February 2012 – Published: 2 March 2012

Abstract. Every year, earthquakes cause economic and human losses around the globe. In Japan, a greatdeal of attention has focused on improving the safety of structures and individuals in the last decade. Theintroduction here of several new related policies, together with continuous discussion of such policies, hasraised the level of environmental security nationwide. Despite this significant effort, individual preparednessand awareness are still lacking, especially in rural areas, where technological advancements and policyapplications often arrive late. In this paper, Kawaguchi in Niigata Prefecture, Japan was chosen asstudy area because of both the major damage experienced during the 2004 Chuetsu earthquake and theparticularly dynamic socio-cultural activities of the community. Using interviews and questionnaires to collectinformation, this study aims to investigate the causes of local variations in community behaviour after theearthquake. Geographic location as well as everyday social relationships, social interactions and organisationare considered the main causes of the differences in community organisation during the recovery process.This study highlights the necessity for more localised emergency education in order to promote longer-lastingawareness and preparation in rural areas.

1 Introduction

Globally, rural and urban communities experience naturaldisasters such as floods, tropical cyclones, earthquakes anddrought (Burton et al., 1993). Each natural disaster willhave a different impact associated with different levels ofvulnerability related to human actions specific areas, suchas building in inappropriate locations or using weak buildingmaterials (Cutter, 1993). More so than the other types ofdisaster, an earthquake is an “event that can be preparedfor in advance”, by providing the necessary knowledge forthose living in seismic areas and also by using advancedanti-seismic construction methods (Turner, 1976). In areas athigh risk for earthquakes, community preparation, includingemergency provisioning, emergency communication plansand community-based planning, is therefore crucial (USGS,2005; FEMA, 2006). Despite the worldwide occurrence ofnatural disasters, in the last three decades, their definition andcharacteristics have been the topics of a considerable amountof discussion (Hewitt, 1983; Dynes, 1993; USGS, 2005;FEMA, 2006). Although earthquake engineering research

and hazard mitigation has advanced in recent years, the paceof economic development and urbanisation has increasedthe risk from earthquakes and resulted in exposing more ofthe world’s population to earthquakes (Tucker et al., 1994).Japan experienced approximately 18 percent of the totalnumber of earthquakes globally of Richter magnitude scale7 and above between 1997 and 2006 (OECD, 2009). TheJapanese population has subsequently learned to survive ina high seismic risk environment and adopted measures tominimise the damage produced by seismic events, and toimprove the recovery process (OECD, 2009). The Japanesegovernment has developed several national policies withinthe last 50 yr to address such events, such as the DisasterRelief Act (1947), the Countermeasures Basic Act (1961)and the Earthquake Disaster Management Special MeasureAct (1995). These policies focus on decentralising andlocalising emergency operations in disasters. Recently, theCentral Disaster Management Council (CDMC) establishedan Earthquake Disaster Management Reduction scheme,putting into place new disaster mitigation goals and refiningpolicies on earthquake-resistant housing and public facilities

Published by Copernicus Publications.

2 M. Gismondi: Investigating community behaviour after the 2004 Chuetsu earthquake

(Suganuma, 2006). Despite the progressive and continuousimprovement of these policy frameworks, the roles andresponsibilities of organisations and individuals during andafter an earthquake remain unclear; moreover, the exchangeof information among different levels of government is stillinsufficient (OECD, 2009).

Despite the efforts of the Japanese government, thereare notable differences between metropolitan and ruralareas that further complicate the successful adoption ofthe policies previously described. In conceptual as wellas practical terms, urban and rural areas present some ofthe most significant sources of regional variation. In fact,many studies have noted that individualism and collectivismare often coincident, respectively, with modern (urban)and traditional (rural) social conditions (Kagitcibasi, 1997;Kashima, 2001; Oyserman et al., 2002). The differencesbetween urban and rural areas are, therefore, representativeof different lifestyles and traditions (Gismondi, 2010). Undera modern, urbanised social order, an individualistic lifestyleis hence most common and limits the degree of collectivismapparent in society (Triandis, 1995). Alternatively, undera traditional, rural social order, people are more proneto adopt a collective lifestyle. In rural areas, diversebut interlocking social roles, including different types ofoccupations such as agricultural activities and services forthe local community, all serve to maintain this collectivelifestyle (Baumeister, 1986 and 1987). Differences inlifestyles may contribute to a resident’s behaviour and mayshape his or her response in the case of a seismic event,especially in regions where urban and rural lifestyles coexist.Due to economic and political interests, urban areas tend tobenefit most from policies and technological improvementsaimed at preventing damage from earthquakes; remote areasare more vulnerable, however, due to the lack of awareness,policies, earthquake-resistant construction and anti-seismicevaluations (Matsushita et al., 2008).

Vulnerability can be defined as “the characteristics ofa person or group and their situation that influence theircapacity to anticipate, cope with, resist and recover fromthe impact of a natural hazard” (Wisner et al., 2004).Another definition incorporates the concept of “capacity” asthe ability of a group or household to resist the violence of ahazard and easily initiate the recovery process (Anderson andWoodrow, 1998; Wisner, 2003). Both of these definitionsinclude the concept of disaster defined by Fritz (1961:665)in the context of social science: “An event, concentratedin time and space, in which a society undergoes severedanger and incurs such losses to its members and physicalappurtenances that the social structure is disrupted.” Whenassessing vulnerability, it is essential first to define the typeof disaster. According to Wisner et al. (2004), the followingfour factors determine earthquake vulnerability: distance tothe epicentre, damage produced, the time of occurrence,and building characteristics. The location of the epicentreand damage caused by past earthquakes provide preliminary

information about a region’s seismic susceptibility. Thehistorical occurrence record of earthquakes in one areacan produce extensive information about the frequencyof earthquake events and can inform the level of riskawareness. For example, an earthquake occurring atnight would produce higher numbers of casualties becausepeople in their homes would be more exposed to injuries(Alexander, 1985). In Japan, offices are usually madewith anti-seismic construction methods that arguably lowerthe risk of death during working hours. Other factorsshould also be considered such as the complex geographyof structural damage (buildings, roads, facilities, etc.) andthe location of the epicentre of an earthquake event. Giventhat over 95 percent of all deaths in earthquakes arecaused by the collapse of buildings (Alexander, 1985),building characteristics, including the level of structuralsafety and anti-seismic construction measures, clearly doplay a significant role in determining vulnerability (Cuny,1983; Coburn and Spence, 2002). On the policy level,the protective measures responding to these issues includestructural and non-structural regulations such as evacuationareas and shelters locations, as well as other preventivepolicies. After an earthquake, relief measures, such asthe availability of provisions and medical accessibility arecritical factors in reducing the vulnerability of humanpopulations (WHO, 1997). Most importantly the searchand rescue team presence has a crucial role, especiallyimmediately after an earthquake.

Understanding the vulnerability of communities wholive in areas at risk for earthquakes is the first stepin implementing preparative measures (Tierney, 2001).Moreover, the introduction of Geographic InformationSystems (GIS) as a support tool has enabled the analysisof a great deal of information about seismic hazard risks(King and Kiremidjan, 1994; FEMA, 2001), disastermanagement (Mansourian, 2005; Saadarseresht, 2006) andpost-earthquake support measures (ESRI, 2007; EMC,2007). Although a wide range of studies in disasterreduction have been reported, the responsibility forsuccessfully organising to reduce the impact of a naturalhazard falls to different institutional levels (Tierney, 2001).Despite progress in our understanding of vulnerabilityto earthquakes, furthermore, the institutions responsiblefor raising awareness, ensuring individual preparednessand increasing investment in preventive actions havenot yet exercised their full capacity for action (Adger,2006). In the last decade, several global programs havebeen developed to improve earthquake safety, includingprominent initiatives such as the Community EmergencyPreparedness (WHO, 1999) and the Global EarthquakeSafety Initiative (GeoHazard International United NationsCentre for Regional Development, 2001). The priorityof these studies is to reduce earthquake risk by providingshort- and long-term emergency preparedness programs,combining the findings of scientific research on natural

Soc. Geogr., 7, 1–12, 2012 www.soc-geogr.net/7/1/2012/

M. Gismondi: Investigating community behaviour after the 2004 Chuetsu earthquake 3

hazards with governmental policy planning (WHO, 1999;UNCRD, 2001).

An emergency preparedness program should also takein account factors such as geographical location andaccessibility. Indeed, if an earthquake occurs, remote areaswould have higher possibility of remaining isolated dueto their inaccessibility, especially when they are locatedin mountainous areas (Olshansky et al., 2006). In thesecircumstances, the local community becomes an importantprovider of support during the recovery process. For thepurposes of this study, the “community” is defined as agroup of people living in the same area and interactingsocially. Despite living in similar environmental conditions,discrepancies and problems can arise among members ofa given community in the case of an emergency. Raisingawareness and preparing to face an earthquake is the firststep that a community takes toward its independence (Coburnand Spence, 2002), even though maintaining a sufficientlevel of awareness and organisation is arduous and requirescontinuing efforts (Smith, 1961; Yoshida, 1964; Coburn andSpence, 2002). The Japanese Cabinet Office Survey onDisaster Preparedness has confirmed a decrease in the publicawareness of risk after a major earthquake (Suganuma,2006). The actual policy system does not sufficiently providethe preparation required to face a seismic event in rural areasin Japan (OECD, 2009).

While much research has been done on the vulnerabilityand resilience of communities, few studies have been carriedout on how rural communities respond to natural disasterssuch as earthquakes in Japan. Therefore, this study aimsto understand the causes behind the differences in ruralcommunity behaviour after an earthquake, contrasted withwhat occurs in neighbouring urban areas, and how thecharacteristics of a community can be used to promoteawareness and preparation. A bottom-up methodologicalapproach, based on fieldwork and multiple interviews, wasproposed in this study to summarise and interpret how thecommunity reacted after the earthquake. Understandingthe regional character of the community organisation andbehaviour evident in residents may be the key to raiseawareness and improve the preparation of safety proceduresfor future earthquakes.

2 Kawaguchi town and the Chuetsu earthquake

The district of Kawaguchi town is located at the bottom of awide valley in a hilly area surrounded by mountains, inlandof the Niigata Prefecture in the Chuetsu area, 25 km fromthe city of Nagaoka. The term “town” here designates anadministrative spatial unit, not an urban settlement, and inthis case the district of Kawaguchi town is predominantlyrural, but actually comprises an amalgam of rural and remote,as well as urban, locations. The district is situated between37◦10′12′′ to 37◦18′58′′N and 138◦49′57′′ to 138◦51′44′′ E

Figure 1. The three research areas within Kawaguchi town.

(Fig. 1). On 31 March 2010, Kawaguchi was absorbedinto the city of Nagaoka through the dissolution of theKitauonuma district. The town had 5572 residents in 2004and a population density of 111 persons per km2 (ResearchGroup on Damage of Mid-Niigata Earthquake, 2005).Similar to most rural regions in Japan, the population isprogressively declining due to migration, and consequently,the percentage of the population represented by elderlyindividuals continues to increase (Gee, 2000). Local smallbusinesses and agricultural activities make up the economyin the region. The area receives heavy snow during thewinter and is affected by landslides in the spring because ofthe geological conditions of differential denudation, whichis a recurrent phenomenon around Kawaguchi (Konagai,2004). The Niigata Prefecture is historically a high seismicarea. Three notable earthquakes occurred in the last 50 yr,provoking high levels of damage to the Prefecture: the 19647.5 magnitude quake close to Niigata city, the 2004 Chuetsuearthquake and the 2007 Chuetsu offshore earthquake.Despite the numerous earthquakes recorded in history, thecurrent policy system on anti-seismic construction andawareness raising is arguably still not mature enough in thisoverall region (OECD, 2009).

The Chuetsu earthquake occurred on Saturday, 23 October2004, and produced a 6.6 surface wave magnitude, overall a 7magnitude, on the Japanese Meteorological Agency seismicintensity scale (JMA scale) and an estimated economic costof 30 billion USD (Munich, 2005). The Chuetsu earthquakewas the most expensive earthquake to date in Japan afterthe Kobe earthquake of 1995. Kawaguchi reported heavy

www.soc-geogr.net/7/1/2012/ Soc. Geogr., 7, 1–12, 2012


Figure 2. Location of the main earthquakes in proximity toKawaguchi town. Data source: Niigata Chuetsu Earthquake GISproject website.

damage to its buildings and its communication network andwas isolated for three days (Research Group on Damage ofMid-Niigata Earthquake, 2005). The prominent aftershocksthat were recorded (Fig. 2) caused further damage andhindered rescue activities (Hirata et al., 2005). Three areas,namely a central site, a peripheral site and an isolatedsite were chosen for this research to observe communitybehavioural patterns and compare behaviours occurringduring the recovery process within Kawaguchi (Fig. 1)(Gismondi and Huisman, 2012). The division into central,peripheral and isolated locations follows the typical structureused by urban planners to define different areas of a city interms of their relative “urban” and “rural” qualities (Lynch,1960). The three areas were also selected considering theadvice and experience of local authorities in the district.

3 The interview process

This study used face-to-face interviews and questionnairesto collect detailed information about the behaviour ofhouseholds and local communities, a method that allowedefficient data collection and the sharing of information. Inprevious studies, such as those of Kimura et al. (1999,2001), a questionnaire was submitted to a selected numberof people in a specific area through the postal service,with arrangements made to receive answers in the samemanner. Although this method simplifies planning, it collectsanswers without obtaining any further information about

the respondent’s background and behaviour, and so in thisresearch it was decided to conduct face-to-face interviews.Each household was considered as the unit of referencefor the interview, and in total, 58 complete householdinterviews were conducted. That is, 21 household in thecentral area, 16 in the peripheral area, 13 in the isolatedarea, and 8 households which moved inside the study areasafter the earthquake from more remote areas of the district(Gismondi and Huisman, 2012). In this study, it is assumedthat the centre of Kawaguchi town will retain aspects ofa modern urban lifestyle, whereas more isolated areas willshow a predominantly rural and traditional way of living,following the studies undertaken by Kagitcibasi (1997),Kashima (2001) and Oyserman et al. (2002). For this reason,the three sample areas were selected in order to reproduce asocial reality capable of representing the whole district andits varying component social relations and social structures.The assumptions previously cited do risk essentialising therespective constructs of rural/traditional and urban/modern,but they are nonetheless believed to be useful concepts fordistinguishing between two different lifestyles following theobjectives proposed in this paper.

The interviews covered the following topics: thegeographic location of a household’s house, details aboutdaily household and social activities before the earthquake,community activities and the participation of the respondentsin those activities, the level of preparation and awarenessbefore the earthquake, and the observed changes in behaviourafter the earthquake (as shown in Table 1). At the endof each interview, a short questionnaire was distributedto collect further information, including the amount ofdamage experienced, the respondent’s behaviour during theevacuation, and any support given or received. The threestudy areas were compared using the information collectedthrough the interviews and questionnaires. The comparisonfocused primarily on the structural damage caused by theearthquake and the community support and communicationduring the recovery process to illustrate important factors invulnerability reduction and risk analysis (Kimura et al., 1999,2007).

4 Results

4.1 Characteristics of the research areas

Table 2 highlights the main attributes of the residents thatcharacterise the three study areas totalling 1863 individualsout of the 5572 of the whole Kawaguchi town. Thecentral area, or core of the town, is composed of sixcommunities (or neighbourhoods) with a total of 432households with a resident age averaging 45 yr, and itsinhabitants work primarily in local businesses within oroutside the central area. Public transportation and the mainshops, restaurants and governmental buildings are located inthis zone. The earthquake disrupted the road network and



Table 1. Main topics of discussion during the interviews.

Damage received

• House damage• Injuries within the household• Other structural damages

Evacuation methods

• First reactions during the earthquake• Reason of the first reactions• Provisional shelter choice and reason• Shelter knowledge

Support during the recovery process

• Support provided• Auto-evaluation of the behaviour• Support received• Residents requiring assistance

Community lifestyle

• Activities• Social relations• Social structures

Spatio-temporal behaviour, discussed inGismondi and Huisman (2012)

• Spatial mapping• Position of family members over time

prohibited rescuers from reaching the town until three daysafter the first tremor. Despite the large number of households,the local communities here did not prepare any emergencyevacuation plan or shelter assignments. The area contains alarge number of individuals per household, a characteristicthat used to be common, especially after the end of theSecond World War, which often include several generationsliving in the same house. Additionally, younger individualsand newcomers from other villages populate the area.

The peripheral area is smaller in size and comprises 80households and two communities, with residents reportingan average age of 57 yr. Despite being less than 1 kmaway from the central area, agricultural activities dominatethe landscape, leaving more free space between householdsfor interactions and thereby encouraging neighbourhoodrelationships. The only bridge connecting the peripheral tothe central zone was damaged during the earthquake, furtherisolating this area over the subsequent three days. A familystructure similar to that observed in the central area wasrecorded in the peripheral zone.

The isolated area consists of a single community of 52households located in the hills 8 km northeast of the citycentre. The residents in this area reported the highestaverage age of 64 yr, and the main labour activity wasfound to be the cultivation of rice and vegetables. No

public transportation is available in this area, and the localschool lies unused due to the absence of children in thecommunity. Nevertheless, the local school is often used forlocal events and as a shelter in the case of natural disastersor emergencies. The relatively small number of communitymembers and their agricultural activities were found to havepositively influenced the relationships between members inthis study area. Because of the distance from the central zoneand the damage caused by the earthquake, this communityexperienced the longest isolation, extending up to five days.The position of the village on a hillside induced a largenumber of landslides and explained the longer isolation timedue to greater efforts required by the rescuers to re-establishthe main commuting road.

4.2 Damage experienced and evacuation methods

The 2004 Chuetsu earthquake produced strong groundmovements and ultimately caused considerable damage. Sixpeople were killed; 62 were injured; 606 houses werecompletely destroyed; 146 houses were seriously damaged;and 641 houses were moderately damaged. Public facilitieswere also affected. Figure 3 shows two example of thedamage produced by the earthquake and the same areaat the end of the recovery process. In the city centre,the compact urban structure and nucleated housing patternexacerbated the negative impacts of the earthquake becausethe houses that were damaged first collapsed and affected thesurrounding buildings. Anti-seismic structures were mainlypresent in public buildings, but private housing structures hadbeen constructed mainly out of wood. Despite its proximityto the city centre, only minor damage to infrastructure wasrecorded in the peripheral area. The reduced amount ofdamage was the reason that the houses in the peripheral studyarea needed only reinforcement and refurbishment, whereasthose in the central area needed to be completely rebuilt. Thereduced damage positively influenced the recovery processand enabled faster rehabilitation and reconstruction after theearthquake. The isolated area presented a similar distributionof damage as was observed in the central area, such thatless durable wooden construction amplified the damage tohousing. Additionally, road deterioration and landslideswere reported in the hills surrounding the isolated area.Despite the greater amount of damage, refurbishment andconsolidation of the houses were also considered in this arearather than complete reconstruction.

Local government officers stated during the interview:“Although we knew about the high seismic risk of theregion, we did not organise emergency procedures in case ofearthquakes. Residents were not aware where to evacuate,therefore when the first shake occurred panic spread inKawaguchi with a good portion of the town residents tryingto reach the local government buildings seeking support”.The lack of preparation and awareness contributed to thefear and panic that were reported as the most common



Table 2. Relevant attributes in the three research areas. Data source: population census (2000); agricultural census (2000); Kawaguchi townlocal governmental office (2000).

Central Peripheral Isolated

Number of residents 1403 322 138Number of households 432 80 52Average number of residents per house 3.2 4 2.6Number of residents engaged in farming 134 173 116Number of households engaged in farming 29 39 35Number of communities 6 2 1Average age 45 57 64Number of annual activities 8 3 6Time isolated (number of days) 3 3 5Distance from the city Centre (in km) 0–0.5 1–2 8–8.5

Note: the number of residents refers to the three study areas. The therm annual activities refers to the local festivals and other local events.

Higashi Kawaguchi section (City centre)

(a) (b)

After the earthquake At the end of the restoration process

Tamujiyama section (Isolated hamlet)

(c) (d)

After the earthquake At the end of the restoration process

Figure 3. The structural damage provoked by the Chuetsu earthquake. Data source: Niigata Prefecture, Kawaguchi town city office.Note: photos were taken by an officer of Kawaguchi town a week after the Chuetsu earthquake occurred and after the reconstruction wascompleted (Summer, 2005).

reactions to the earthquake and resulted in individuals rarelymoving to a place of refuge inside homes during the seismicevent. In the central area after the earthquake, the evacuationpattern was disorganised. The dense urban structural fabric,

combined with the lack of preparedness, forced individualsfrom different communities to mix and group together inthe few remaining open places, such as parking areas andtemple courtyards. Due to the severity of the damage and



the fear of profiteering, most of the residents used their owncars as provisional shelter for the first several days of therecovery process. An example is the witness statement of a62 yr old victim: “we lived in our car for one week, we weretoo afraid to sleep inside the house”. When the residents’focus shifted from their individual houses, they begancommunity organisation within the area. The observed lackof knowledge about town shelters provides another exampleof the difficulties of organising the community immediatelyafter the earthquake. Residents generally moved to theclosest shelter or close to the local government building.Although a portion of the population began to move toofficial public shelters, the local government has confirmedthe total absence of sheltering assignment: “residents didnot know where to go, this was the main reason of the panicwhich spread immediately after the earthquake”.

The reactions in the peripheral area were similar tothose observed in the central zone, including the primaryimportance of individuals providing protection to their ownfamilies inside their houses. However, the lower densityof the urban structure in this area provoked a scatteredevacuation pattern, contrary to the concentrated evacuationpatterns observed in the central area. Residents herealso preferred their cars as provisional shelter for the firstnight following the earthquake, once again indicating theattachment of the respondents to their own houses and thefear of robbery. As stated by one of the victims: “I wasafraid, my house collapsed and I did not want to move. I keptliving in my car until the rescuers arrived with provisions andother primary necessity goods”. The residents responded tothe first tremor with a poorly organised evacuation, in whichtwo schools designated as shelters in case of emergencyremained partially vacant and available, which was due tothe preference of most residents to stay close to their ownhouseholds and spend the initial period of the rehabilitationprocess divided into small groups. Residents in the isolatedarea reported panic only during the immediate aftershocks.After the first tremor, these residents moved to the localshelter (the “retired” school) that was considered a securelocation. As stated by one of the interviewees: “Whenthe earthquake occurred, my husband and I immediatelyleft our house, grabbing what we could, and we movedas soon as possible to the shelter, because we knew itwould be safe there”. This location remained a reference-point during the entire recovery process due to the mutualefforts implemented by community members in organisingthe reconstruction of their hamlet and the restoration of itsdaily activities.

4.3 Community support and communication methods

The community played an important role in the vulnerabilityto a natural disaster, butthe lack of preventative organisationamong community members considerably reduced theefficiency of that support. In Kawaguchi, different types

of community behaviour were observed in each of theinvestigated areas. In the central area, the residentsprioritised ensuring the safety of their own family andmaintaining provisions for them. One of the victims stated:“After the earthquake nobody was coming, we did nothave any emergency supplies, so we kept what we had formainly ourselves, but still we tried to provide support toour neighbours”. The lack of preparation for emergenciesappears to have been the main issue that slowed down therecovery process. Local government support was essentialfor the organisation of shelters and tent camps. The arrivalof rescuers provided more defined organisation as well as thereconstruction and consolidation of damaged structures androads.

Despite its disconnection from the central area, thehouseholds in the peripheral area succeeded in groupinginto small units. With the interruption of localgovernment services, the residents did not benefit fromimmediate support, but greater collaboration appearedamong households in terms of resource-sharing and mutualsupport, such as sharing food and other objects servicingprimary needs such as clothing. The testimony of onevictim indicates the successful neighbourhood organisationthat took place: “We were alone. As we had just collectedthe rice, we organised a kitchen in my garage together withthe neighbourhood. We ate only rice and vegetables butwe were all alive”. Although most of the residents wereorganised in groups, each group considered the choice ofmoving into local shelters to avoid highly damaged buildingsor to assist its elderly members. Individuals and groups inthe isolated area took a different approach. Regardless ofthe lack of emergency planning, the community membersrapidly organised and shared their resources extensively,enhancing their independence from the local government.As one of the interviewees reported: “We used the schoolkitchens to eat and the gym to sleep. We could not reachthe city centre and as nobody was coming, we decided toopen the road by ourselves”. After five days of isolation,local residents were able partially to reconstruct a numberof local buildings and a commuting road and, thus, enabledeasier access for rescuers. The greater number of elderlyresidents in this area necessitated additional assistance tocomplete the evacuation, but, despite the isolation of the areaand the inaccessibility of the local government services, thecommunity members supported those needing assistance. Byusing only one shelter as the core of the recovery process,the residents organised more easily and overcame the lack ofexternal support.

The inability to communicate and plan had a strong,negative impact on the rehabilitation process. As stated bya victim: “telephone and cellphone were not working, Icould not even call my parents to tell them that I was safeand in good shape”. It caused difficulties for individualsattempting to locate and gather members of their families,and at the community level it blocked the flow of information



about rehabilitation procedures. Most respondents used theirown house as the meeting point to regroup their familymembers. However, no effective family evacuation planshad been prepared in case of emergency. The lack of anevacuation plan was due in part to the local governmentnot instilling sufficient awareness in or providing adequateknowledge about disaster mitigation procedures to families.Different types of communication hence appeared in eachstudy site immediately following the earthquake, rather thanthere being one consistent model followed. For example, thecentral and peripheral areas reported more family-focusedmeans of communication, whereas the isolated area exhibitedcommunity-oriented forms of communication with a rapidexchange of information. The latter resulted in moreimmediate and arguably effective support directly followingthe earthquake.

5 Discussion

This study investigated the behaviour of residents ofKawaguchi town after the 2004 Chuetsu earthquake.Differences in behaviour and organisation appeared inthe study area and indicate the existence of clusteredcommunities with unique characteristics according to theirlocation in the town centre, the peripheral area orthe isolated area (Gismondi and Huisman, 2012). AsAnderson (1994) and Cutter et al. (2008) have observed, thepre-existing patterns of daily life for community membersare the main contributing factors to spatial differencesin organisation and behaviour, as well as vulnerabilityto natural disasters. Understanding these patterns couldeventually inform new policy response, ones that mightbetter reinforce the structure of the community and reduceits vulnerability. Geographic location, daily relationships,social interactions and organisation explain the differences inbehaviour observed among the communities within the town.These factors also have an impact in successful resourcemanagement and organisation among residents, as discussedby Blaikie et al. (1994). Preparing communities to facedisasters is a major policy topic around the world, includingin the United States, as demonstrated by the activities andprograms of the Federal Emergency Management Agency(FEMA, 1997).

Cultural and cognitive variables such as traditions,perceptions and sensations are among the factors influencingan individual’s ability to react during a seismic event.Proper understanding of these factors may lead to improvededucation and use of relevant information before an eventto prompt better responses if or when another event occurs(Asgary and Willis, 1997). Campaigns to warn the generalpublic took place after the Chuetsu earthquake (Kamigaichiet al., 2009). Similar to other education campaignsworldwide, this campaign consisted of distributinginformational booklets on earthquake preparedness and

first aid to local schools, as well as risk awareness andpreparation courses. The heterogeneity of communitystructures and interests always produces additional issuesin successfully promoting the dissemination of informationat all social and age levels inside a community. Theunpredictability of natural events, such as earthquakes,means that their risk is often underestimated. In this study,it was found that residents were more aware of the risksof phenomena such as heavy snowfall and landslides oftenoccurring during the year (Konagai, 2004). However,the occurrence of an earthquake was underestimateddue to the impossibility of forecasting these phenomena(Kogan, 2007). Disaster awareness, the knowledge oflong-term residents of a specific location and records ofpast earthquakes, is important for providing educationalinformation (Tanaka, 2005). Maintaining earthquakeawareness and readiness at high levels over time is a priorityin different regions in Japan (Imai et al., 1997; InformationBureau of Cabinet Secretary of the Japanese Government,1998; Tanaka and Hattori, 2001). Despite the generaltrend of increasing the knowledge and preparation in Japanrelated to the emergency educational system, rural districts,such as Kawaguchi, remained partially defenceless in thisrespect. The absence of earthquake-resistant buildingsexplains the considerable amount of damage caused toinfrastructure (Miranda and Bertero, 1994). Because of thehigh risk of residential buildings collapsing, the communityplayed an important role in guaranteeing the safety of itsresidents, but the observed behaviour highlights the lackof individual knowledge of emergency procedures and thatthis information was not provided by the local governmentbefore the earthquake.

A strong connection between age and labour type wasan important factor in explaining the regional differencesobserved in behaviour in this study, as shown in Table 2.Lower average age generations are only partially engaged inagriculture, preferring to work outside the town and the localcommunity, and hence being less bound into local socialrelations that might be the basis for collective action (Spesnaet al., 2009). Conversely, residents who are active in thefields rely on constant collaboration in their daily life becausethe work itself is based on cooperation. Thus, farmingcomplements community activities, and the strong bondsoriginating in the daily life of the community overcomeother issues, including the lower population density in theperipheral and isolated areas (Pretty, 1999). Because thecentral area has the lowest percentage of residents engaged inagricultural activities and a lower average age, the everydayconnections there appear to be much weaker. Therefore,a weaker relationship at the community level is observed,where daily activities are located primarily outside thetown and family members are separated for most of theday (Lefebvre, 1970). The creation and maintenance ofa community requires attention and, especially, trust andcollaboration (Murray and Dunn, 1996). This phenomenon



explains why neighbourhoods with a higher average ageintegrate better and why their members maintain strongerbonds by sharing the same working activity and forminga network of trust over time. It is also interesting tohighlight that in areas with a stronger social bond, a lackin anti-seismic construction is observed, whereas in areaswith weaker social bond stronger anti-seismic constructionis present.

In neighbourhoods with a higher average age, residentsexhibit strong connections and are strongly engaged incommunity life. Hence, disaster planning efforts couldfocus on incorporating members of younger generations andnewcomers to improve the social network (Shaw et al.,2004). This planning has already begun to be carried outthrough family and community activities in a more effectiveway, by organising events that increase shared knowledgeabout the region and ensuring appropriate collaboration incase of emergency. The local government also plays animportant role in supporting the subsistence of existingcommunities and the creation of new ones (Ioakimides etal., 1984). Promoting collaboration, constructing emergencyinfrastructure and providing basic emergency knowledge areexamples of the types of emergency preparation neededin Kawaguchi. Raising a community’s awareness ofa certain topic is easier than maintaining it over time(Coburn and Spence, 2002). Therefore, the communitywas considered indispensable by residents in improvingtheir safety during the recovery process. The case ofthe isolated area indeed highlighted the importance of thecommunity in overcoming the damage of a seismic eventthrough providing immediate and long-term support, sharingresources and strengthening the community’s independence.The surrounding environment is associated with specificcharacteristics that make one community different fromanother. The lifestyle of the community’s residents is directlyresponsible for how an individual relates to their familyand community. There is no universal way of promotingawareness and preparation, but residents have the capacityto overcome a seismic event when they are aware of theirown vulnerability (Tanaka and Hattori, 2001). The case ofthe isolated area illustrates how the traditional lifestyle hasinfluenced the behaviour of its residents.

The two definitions of “vulnerability” and “disaster”provided in this paper are directly dependent upon thecharacter of the human society which is living in a specificgeographical area. Therefore, a disaster should not bedefined only as a natural event but also consider the socialinteractions among members of a specific society, sincea natural disaster will have a different impact accordingto the type of social structure and geographical locationwhich it encounters. To overcome the vulnerability ofpeople resulting from a disaster, it then becomes necessaryto deepen understanding of how the cultural and traditionalhistory of a society will influence their behaviour and alsowhich type of approach will be the most efficient to provide

awareness and organisation. The differences observed in thecommunity social organisation in the three research areasof Kawaguchi town showed that prior approaches used todisseminate knowledge and organise local communities hadbeen insufficient. Furthermore, the concept of vulnerabilityassumes different meanings according to the characteristicsof residents and which institutional level is considered(ADPC, 2003 and Triulzi et al., 2003). At nationallevel, the vulnerability depends on the long-term strategiesin loss reduction, mitigation and an effective dialoguebetween government and citizens. At community level,the vulnerability of any one single household potentiallycontributes to increasing the whole community vulnerability.However, existing social and cultural structures within thecommunity are the main determinants of the resilience of thecommunity to the disaster (ADPC, 2003).

This paper therefore wants to stress the importance ofreducing the community-level vulnerability. As a concreteexample, in this study three specific study areas wereselected. In the central area, the vulnerability was thehighest among the study areas, mainly due to the lackof deep social relations and what can be portrayed as aweaker social structure that slowed down the rehabilitationprocess and the interaction between residents, who optedfor an individualistic behavioural response to the crisis.In the case of the peripheral area, the distance betweenhouseholds and the impossibility of communicating withthe city hall were the main factors explaining the residents’vulnerability. However, the presence of a more traditionaland collective lifestyle reduced the residents’ vulnerability,as they could more easily overcome the isolation periodusing local hierarchical social relations to their advantage.The isolated area, thanks to the strong social relations andthe well-defined structure of the local society, could betterovercome the isolation period and therefore better attendto the rehabilitation process. The community successfullymanaged to be independent, especially during the isolationperiod, in a sense thereby overcoming their vulnerability,yet the fact that they were obliged to be on their ownfor such long time was itself an issue. Therefore, ratherthan vulnerability in the isolated areas, it would be moreappropriate to speak about inaccessibility due to the five daysof isolation. This paper follows the concepts of rural andurban introduced by Kagitcibasi (1997), Kashima (2001) andOyserman et al. (2002). These concepts are adopted in thispaper to clarify the distinction in the residents’ behaviour.A certain danger of essentialising the concepts of urban incontrast with rural must be acknowledged as restrictive andposing certain constraints to the conclusions being drawn asoutputs from this paper. Further studies should be done inorder to deepen the investigation of community behaviourinvestigation in rural areas and perhaps to move beyond theconcepts described in this paper.



From the above assumptions, it is believed that acommunity-driven plan taking into account the specificcharacteristics of each community, and created by thecommunity itself with the support of local government,could more effectively raise awareness among residentsabout where they are living, the actual threats of naturaldisasters and ways to prepare for and overcome them. TheJapanese family and rural community hierarchical systemcould be used more effectively to guarantee faster response,better organisation and greater security, especially in theearliest stage of the recovery process, as also stated byShaw et al. (2004). During this early stage, the rapidity ofaction is essential, as was seen in the isolated area in thisstudy. Division into small, well-organised groups provedto be particularly effective after the earthquake, ensuringthe welfare of residents. The difference in social relationsand hierarchical structures present in each community isbelieved to be the focal point in this study as representingthe “hearth” of the community itself. The results ofthis study therefore recommend using the social activitiesand the underlying social structures and relations of localJapanese communities to promote awareness about the mainrisks arising within a specific area. Producing a sufficientdegree of awareness could eventually lead to increasedindependence and organisation for communities, furtherenhancing a cultural feature typical of Japan: preparation inthe face of unexpected disasters.

Acknowledgements. The author would like to thank the editorand reviewers for their thoughtful comments and support duringthe reviewing process.

Edited by: C. PhiloReviewed by: M. Hannah and R. Thomas

References

Adger, W. N.: Vulnerability, Global Environ. Chang., 16, 268–281,2006.

Alexander, D.: Death and Injury in Earthquakes, Disasters, 9, 57–60, 1985.

Anderson, K. M. and Manuel, G.: Gender Differences in ReportedStress Response to the Loma Prieta Earthquake, Sex Roles, 30,725–733, 1994.

Anderson, M. and Woodrow, P.: Rising from the Ashes:Development Strategies in Time of Disaster, Boulder, CO andLondon: IT Publications and Lynne Rienner, 1998.

Asgary, A. and Willis, K. G.: Household behavior in response toearthquake risk, Disasters, 21, 354–365, 1997.

Asian Disaster Preparedness Center (ADPC): EarthquakeVulnerability Reduction for Cities, in: Third Regional TrainingCourse on Earthquake Vulnerability Reduction for Cities,Bangladesh, 1–10, 2003.

Baumeister, R. F.: Identity: Cultural change and the struggle forself, New York, Oxford University Press, 1986.

Baumeister, R. F.: How the self became a problem: A psychologicalreview of historical research, J. Pers. Soc. Psychol., 52, 163–176,1987.

Blaikie, P., Cannon, T., Davis, I., and Wisner, B.: At Risk: NaturalHazards, People’s Vulnerability, and Disasters, Routledge,London, 1994.

Burton, I., Kates, R. W., and White, G. F.: The Environment asHazard, The guilford Press, New York, 1993.

Coburn, A. and Spence, R.: Earthquake Protection (Second Edn.),Wiley Eds., 2002.

Cuny, F.: Disasters and Development, New York, Oxfam andOxford University Press, 1983.

Cutter, S. L.: Living with Risk, London, Edward Arnold, 1993.Cutter, S. L., Barnes, L., Berry, M., Burton, C., Evans, E., Tate,

E., and Webb, J.: A place-based model for understandingcommunity resilience to natural disasters, Global Environ.Chang., 18, 598–606, 2008.

Dynes, R. R.: Disaster Reduction: The importance of adequateassumptions about social organisation, Sociol. Spectrum, 6, 24–25, 1993.

EMC (Emergency Maping Center): Emergency Maping CenterReport, 2007, Niigata-Ken Chuetsu-oki Earthquake, EmergencyMapping Center GK Kyoto, 2007.

ESRI (Economic and Social Research Institute): GIS forEarthquakes, GIS Best Practice, available at:www.esri.com/publicsafety, 2007.

FEMA (Federal Emergency Management Agency): MultihazardIdentification and Risk Assessment: A Cornerstone of theNational Mitigation Strategy, Federal Emergency ManagementAgency, Washington DC, 1997.

FEMA (Federal Emergency Management Agency): Earthquakeloss estimation methodology, HAZUS99. Service release 2,technical manual, Federal Emergency Management Agency,Washington DC, 2001.

FEMA (Federal Emergency Management Agency): Protecting yourProperty from Earthquakes, Federal Emergency ManagementAgency, Washington DC, 2006.

Fritz, C. E.: Disasters, in: Contemporary social problems, editedby: Merton, R. K. and Nisbet, R. A., New York, Harcourt, 651–694, 1961.

Gee, M.: Japanese town with few children offers glimpse of future,Globe and Mail, A1–A11, 2000.

Gismondi, M.: Spatial analysis of the behaviour of residents afterthe 2004 Chuetsu Earthquake: a case study of KawaguchiVillage, Japan, Proceedings of The Praire Summit, CanadianAssociation of Geographers Annual Meeting, 129–132, 2010.

Gismondi, M. and Huisman O.: Spatio-temporal behaviour after anearthquake. A case study of Kawaguchi town, Japan, DisasterPrevention and Management, 21–23, in press, 2012.

Glenn, C. M.: Natural Disasters and Human Behavior, Psychology:A Journal of Human Behavior, 16, 23–36, 1979.

Hewitt, K.: Interpretations of Calamity: From the Viewpoint ofHuman Ecology, Allen and Unwin, London, 1983.

Hirata, N., Sato, H., Sakai, S., Kato, A., and Kurashimo, E.: Faultsystem of the 2004 Mid Niigata Prefecture Earthquake and itsaftershocks, Landslides, 2, 153–157, 2005.

Imai, N., Nakamura, K., and Tada, I.: Influence and changes ofdwelling life and residential consciousness concerning life styleby Hanshin-Awaji earthquake: Case study of residents living


www.esri.com/publicsafety

www.esri.com/publicsafety


in apartments of housing and urban development corporation inNara and Hamamatsu (Research on conditions of dwelling lifeand residential consciousness considering a disaster prevention(Part I)), Kaseigaku Kenkyu (Studies on Home Economics), 43,60–66, 1997 (in Japanese with English abstract).

Information Bureau of Cabinet Secretary of the JapaneseGovernment: Public-opinion survey on disaster prevention,Tokyo, Prime Minister’s Office, Tokyo, 1998 (in Japanese).

Ioakimides, G., Carydis, G., Pnayotis, G., and Elias, D.: Earthquakepreparedness and local government. Proceedings of the Seminaron Earthquake Preparedness, Athens, 127–139, 1984.

Kamigaichi, O., Saito, M., Doi, K., Matsumori, T., Tsukada, S.,Takeda, K., Shimoyama, T., Nakamura, K., Kiyomoto, M., andWatanabe, Y.: Earthquake Early Warning in Japan: Warning theGeneral Public and Future Prospects, Seismol. Res. Lett., 80,717–726, 2009.

Kagan, Y. Y.: Are earthquakes predictable?, Geographical JournalInternational, 131, 505–525, 1997.

Kagitcibasi, C.: Individualism and collectivism, in: Handbook ofcross-cultural psychology, edited by: Berry, J. W., Poortinga, Y.H., and Pandey, J., Boston, 1, 43–83, 1997.

Kashima, Y.: Culture and social cognition: Towards a socialcognition of cultural dynamics, in: Handbook of culture andpsychology, edited by: Matsumoto, D., Oxford University Press,325–360, 2001.

Kimura, R., Hayashi, H., Tatsuki, S., and Urata, Y.: Clarifying theHuman Behavior of the Disaster Victims after the Great Hanshin-Awaji Earthquake, Journal of Social Safety Science, 1, 93–102,1999 (Japanese).

Kimura, R., Hayashi, H., Tatsuki, S., and Tamura, K.: Determinantsand Timing of Housing Reconstruction in the 1995 Hanshin-Awaji Earthquake Disaster, A 2001 Replication, Journal ofSocial Safety Science, 3, 23–32, 2001 (Japanese).

Kimura, R., Hayashi, H., and Tamura, K.: Which Roles are Citizensand the Community to Play in the Field of Disaster Management?(Results from the Random Sampled Social Surveys to theDisaster Victims of the 1995 Kobe Earthquake and the 2004Niigata Earthquake Disaster), 2nd International Conference onUrban Disaster Reduction, Taipei, 2007.

King, S. A. and Kiremidjan, A.: Regional seismic hazard and riskanalysis through geographic information systems, BLUME-111,The John A. Blume Earthquake Engineering Center Stanford,California, US, 1994.

Konagai, K.: Preliminary Report, Mid-Niigata PrefectureEarthquake Preliminary report on damage caused by the Mid-Niigata Prefecture Earthquake on October 23, 2004.

Lefebvre, H.: From rural to urban, Annthropos, Paris, 1970.Lynch, K.: The image of the city, The Massachusetts Institute of

Technology Press, US, 1960.Matsushita, K., Fujii, M., and Takata, T.: Damage of Houses and

Residential Areas by Niigata Prefecture Earthquakes (Part 1),Proceedings of the Eighteenth International Offshore and PolarEngineering Conference, Vancouver, 2008.

Mansoirian, A., Rajabifard, A., and Zoej, M. J. V.: SDI conceptualmodelling for disaster management, ISPRS Workshop onService and Application of Spatial Data Infrastructure, XXXVI,Hangzhou, China, 2005.

Miranda, E. and Bertero, V. V.: Evaluation of Strenght ReductionFactors for Earthquake-Resistant Design, Earthq. Spectra, 10,

357–379, 1994.Munich, R.: Topics Geo annual review: natural catastrophes 2004,

Munich Reinsurance Company, Germany, 2005.Murray, M. and Dunn, L.: Revitalizing rural America: a perspective

on collaboration and community, John Wiley & Sons, UK, 1996.OECD (Organisation for Economic Co-operation and

development): OECD Reviews of Risk Management Policies,Japan: Large-scale Floods and Earthquakes, OECD Publications,France, 2009.

Oyserman, D., Coon, H. M., and Kemmelmeier, M.: How Americanis individualism? Relational Americans and other lessons fromcultural and cross-cultural research, Psychol. Bull., 128, 3–72,2002.

Olshansky, R. B., Nakabayashi, I., and Ohnish, K.: Socioeconomic,Polocy, and Planning Aspects of the 2004 Niigata Ken ChuetsuEarthquake, Earthquake Spectra, 1–22, 2006.

Pretty, J.: The Living Land: “Agriculture, Food and CommunityRegeneration in the 21st Century”, Earthscan, UK, 1999.

Research Group on Damage of Mid-Niigata Earthquake: The MidNiigata Prefecture Earthquake in 2004. Relation of earthquakedamage with geomorphic and geologic setting, Associationfor the Geological Collaboration in Japan, Tokyo, 2005 (inJapanese).

Saadatseresht, M. and Mansuorian, A.: Preplanning for temporalsettlement of victims in disasters, MapAsia 2006, Thailand,2006.

Shaw, R., Shiwaku, K., Kobayashi, H., and Kobayashi, M.: Linkingexperience, education, perception and earthquake preparedness,Disaster Prevention and Management, 13, 39–49, 2004.

Smith, K. J. and Belgrave, L. L.: Collective Behavior: afterHurricane Andrew, in: Down to Earth Sociology, edited by:Henslin, J., Free Press, New York, 2003.

Smith, R. J.: The Japanese Rural Community: Norms, Sanctions,and Ostracism, Am. Anthropol., 63, 522–533, 1961.

Spesna, D., Pospech, P., Nohel, F., Drlik, J., and Delin, M.: Agingof the agricultural workforce in relation to the agricultural labourmarket, Agricultural Economy, 55, 424–535, 2009.

Suganuma, K.: Recent Trends in Earthquake Disaster Managementin Japan, Quarterly Review of the Science and TechnologyForesight Center, Tokyo, 2006.

Tanaka, K.: The impact of disaster education on public preparationand mitigation for earthquakes: a cross-country comparisonbetween Fukui, Japan and the San Francisco Bay Area,California, US, Appl. Geogr., 25, 201–225, 2005.

Tanaka, K. and Hattori, I.: Analysis of disaster-measures basedon survey of people’s consciousness of earthquake disasterprevention in the Fukui area, central Japan, Nature andEnvironment of the Sea of Japan Districts, 8, 79–102, 2001 (inJapanese with English abstract).

Tierney, K. J., Lindell, M. K., and Perry, R. W.: Facing theUnexpected: Disaster Preparedness and Response in the UnitedStates, Joseph Henry Press, US, 2001.

Triandis, H. C.: Individualism and Collectivism, Boulder, CO,Westview, 1995.

Triulzi, U., Tommasoli, M., and Montalbano, P.: PolicyOptions for Socioeconimic Vulnerability Analysis: conflictanalysis and long-term development programmes and strategies.FAO international workshop on “Food Security in ComplexEmergencies: building policy frameworks to address longer-term



programming challenges”, Italy, 1–12, 2003.Tucker, B., Trumbull, G., and Wyss, S.: Some Remarks Concerning

Worldwide Urban Earthquake Hazard and Earthquake HazardMitigation, in: Issues in Urban Earthquake Risk, KluwerAcademic Publishers, Netherlands, 1994.

Turner, R. H.: Earthquake prediction and public policy: Disillusionsfrom a National Academy of Sciences report, Mass Emergencies,1, 179–202, 1976.

United Nations Centre for Regional Development (UNCRD):Global Earthquake Safety Initiative (GESI) Pilot Project (FinalReport), GeoHazard International United Nations Centre forRegional Development, 2001.

United States Geological Survey (USGS): Putting Down Roots inEarthquake Country, United States Government Printing Office,US Geological Survey General Information Product 15, 2005.

Usami, T.: Study of Historical Earthquakes in Japan, B. Earthq.Res. I. Tokyo, 54, 399–439, 1979.

Yoshida, T.: Social Conflict and Cohesion in Japanese RuralCommunity, Ethnology, 3, 219–231, 1964.

Wisner, B.: The communities Do Science! Proactive andContextual Assessment of Capability and Vulnerability in theFace of Hazards, in: Vulnerability: Disasters, Development andPeople, ch. 13., edited by: Bankoff, G., Frerks, G., and Hilhorst,T., London, Earthscan, UK, 2003.

Wisner, B., Blaikie, P., Cannon, T., and Davis, I.: At Risk (SecondEdn.), Natural hazards, people’s vulnerability and disasters,Routledge Taylor and Francis Group, New York, US, 2004.

World Health Organisation (WHO): Earthquakes and People’sHealths, Proceedings of the WHO Symposium, Kobe, 27–30January, Kobe, Japan, WHO Centre of Health Development,1997.

World Health Organisation (WHO): Community emergencypreparedness: a manual for managers and policy-makers, WorldHealth Organisation, Geneva, Switzerland, 1999.


data - soc-geogr.net · fema, 2006). although earthquake engineering research and hazard mitigation...

Documents